EU competition law application in Market Court
EU Competition Law Application in the Finnish Market Court
I. 🔍 Overview of EU Competition Law in Finland
EU Competition Law is primarily governed by Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Article 101 prohibits anti-competitive agreements.
Article 102 prohibits abuse of a dominant position.
The Finnish Market Court (Markkinaoikeus) is a specialized court responsible for competition law cases in Finland.
The Market Court applies both Finnish Competition Act (948/2011) and EU competition law.
The Court ensures national enforcement is consistent with EU principles and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
Finnish courts use direct effect and supremacy of EU law to apply EU competition rules.
II. ⚖️ Jurisdiction and Competence of the Market Court
The Market Court hears cases involving:
Cartels and restrictive agreements.
Abuse of dominant position.
Merger control disputes.
Appeals against decisions by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA).
The Court applies EU law directly when relevant.
Decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court (KKO), which also respects EU law.
III. 🧾 Key Case Law – Detailed Explanations
✅ Case 1: Market Court 2016:24 – Cartel Agreement in the Construction Sector
Facts:
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority found that several construction companies had entered into price-fixing agreements affecting public contracts.
Issue:
Did the companies infringe Article 101 TFEU and Finnish Competition Act by colluding on prices?
Decision:
The Market Court confirmed the FCCA's decision, finding the companies guilty of cartel behavior.
The Court emphasized that price-fixing agreements distort competition and violate EU law.
The Court applied CJEU principles on cartel enforcement, particularly the 'hardcore restrictions' doctrine (cartels are automatically unlawful).
Significance:
Reaffirms Market Court’s strict enforcement of EU competition rules against cartels.
✅ Case 2: Market Court 2018:12 – Abuse of Dominant Position by a Telecom Operator
Facts:
A dominant telecom company was accused of refusing to grant network access to a competitor.
Issue:
Did the refusal constitute abuse of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU?
Decision:
The Market Court analyzed the firm's market power and its refusal to supply essential facilities.
Applying CJEU standards (e.g., Bronner case), the Court held that refusal could be abusive if it prevents competition without objective justification.
The Court ordered the company to allow access under fair conditions.
Significance:
Illustrates the application of EU law criteria in abuse of dominance cases.
✅ Case 3: Market Court 2019:8 – Merger Control and EU Notification
Facts:
Two large retail chains merged without notifying the European Commission.
Issue:
Was the failure to notify a violation of merger control rules under the EU Merger Regulation?
Decision:
The Market Court ruled that the transaction met the thresholds requiring notification to the Commission.
It upheld the FCCA’s decision imposing fines for failure to notify.
The Court emphasized the need to comply with EU procedural rules to preserve competition across the internal market.
Significance:
Highlights Market Court’s role in ensuring compliance with EU merger control rules.
✅ Case 4: Market Court 2020:15 – Vertical Restraints and Selective Distribution
Facts:
A manufacturer imposed restrictions on distributors regarding territory and pricing.
Issue:
Were these vertical agreements restrictive under Article 101 TFEU?
Decision:
The Court applied the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and CJEU case law.
Found some restrictions lawful under the block exemption, but others went beyond and restricted competition unlawfully.
Emphasized balancing pro-competitive effects and anti-competitive restraints.
Significance:
Shows how the Market Court applies detailed EU regulations and jurisprudence on vertical agreements.
✅ Case 5: Market Court 2021:7 – State Aid and Public Funding
Facts:
A company received public funding, allegedly distorting competition.
Issue:
Did the funding constitute unlawful State aid under EU rules?
Decision:
The Market Court considered whether the aid gave the recipient an advantage distorting competition.
Applied EU State aid principles and deferred to the European Commission’s exclusive competence in State aid.
The Court upheld suspension of funding pending Commission investigation.
Significance:
Demonstrates Market Court’s respect for EU State aid enforcement mechanisms.
IV. 📌 Summary Table: Application of EU Competition Law by Market Court
| Case Topic | EU Law Applied | Key Principles Enforced | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cartel Agreements | Article 101 TFEU | Automatic illegality of price-fixing | Confirmed cartel liability and fines |
| Abuse of Dominance | Article 102 TFEU | Essential facilities doctrine | Ordered access to competitor |
| Merger Control | EU Merger Regulation | Notification requirements | Upheld fines for failure to notify |
| Vertical Restraints | Article 101 TFEU + VBER | Block exemption & restrictions | Partial exemption, partial violation |
| State Aid | EU State Aid Rules | Distortion of competition | Suspension of funding pending review |
V. 💡 Conclusion
The Finnish Market Court plays a vital role in the national enforcement of EU competition law.
It closely follows the jurisprudence of the CJEU ensuring consistent application of EU rules.
The Market Court’s decisions ensure fair competition, prevent abuses, and protect the internal market.
Finnish firms and authorities must comply not only with national law but also with EU competition standards, as upheld by the Market Court.
RELATED Blog
0 comments